동산채권담보법에 의한 채권담보권자의 제3채무자에 대한 대항요건과 제3채무자의 면책기준 - 대법원 2016. 7. 14. 선고 2015다71856, 71863 판결 -

Act on Security over movable property, claims, etc. is a relatively new legislation enacted on June 10, 2010. The Supreme Court precedent related to this is not uncommon. The object judgment is a meaningful decision against a valid defense against a third-party obligor and immunity from responsibility of a third-party obligor by Act on Security over movable property, claims, etc. If the secured person fails to meet the requirements of Article 35 of Act on Security over movable property, claims, etc., there is no problem with the repayment of assignee. But, after secured person and assignee meet the requirements against a third-party obligor, it may be a matter of question whether the third-party obligor will be entitled to immunity or not. The current law stipulates otherwise about a valid defense against a third party and a valid defense against a third-party obligor. Therefore, there may be an interpretation according to the number of cases in which the reimbursement can be made to whom. Nevertheless, the current law does not offer clear interpretation criteria for this. Thus, opinions of scholars were divided on the subject. However, it is significant that the object judgment is presenting interpretation. The object judgment is significant in its benefits. In addition, it is believed to be a reasonable conclusion to abide by the basic principles of civil law that the court gives priority to secured person. In the future, the interpretation of these precedents should be progressed to the revision of Act on Security over movable property, claims, etc.